Art De La Guerre

[KevinD]

Is the following correct in how you figure shooting in cover?

To determine line of sight you have to trace lines from each front corner of the shooter to any one point on the target. This applies for determine if you can shoot and if you take a penalty in shooting, right?

If only one of these two lines passes through > 1 UD of cover, then shooting is blocked even if the other line does not, right?

Further since both lines have to trace to the same point the furthest apart the shooter could be from the target if both are in cover is about .86 UD, right?
(Square root of (1 - 0.5 squared) = square root of .75 = .866…, right?

If only one of these two lines passes through any cover, then shooting is at -1 even if the other line does not, right?

[Ramses II]

[Neep]

I'm pretty certain if the target is within 1UD anywhere, you can shoot at it, and you do not measure LOS. It's the same for gullies and crestlines, and avoid a lot of headaches.

[Dickstick]

Incorrect.
Range is nearest to nearest in arc.
Los is both front corners to some point on target
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[Neep]

AFAICS range is independent of arc - it probably should not be, but that's what the rules have.

LOS is limited by cover. Exactly how is a little vague. But if you do not allow LOS to any 1UD range, then as Kevin notes, shooting at a target directly in front is effectively .86 UD (which you would check by measuring 1UD from each corner - that's a fiddly measure when it does happen).

[Ramses II]

No. As Dipstick says, these are different concepts. 

Shooting Range and arc is measured between the nearest points.

LOS is taken from the front corners to some point on the target, one line of which may well exceed the shooting range.

If one line can be traced (in range) directly to the target, while the other line goes through cover, then the target is in range but in cover, even if the target is beyond 1UD. 

Simples

[Neep]

I am not talking about range along LOS. I am talking about page 59:
"If the two units are separated by more than one UD of terrain that gives cover (in a wood for example) shooting is not possible."
and page 57:
"These lines [of sight] must not be blocked by terrain..."

This gets messy if the shooter is in one wood and the target is in a different wood.

I suggest the "simples"est interpretation is if a line can be traced from the shooting edge to an edge of the target that passes cumulatively through 1UD of cover or less, then shooting is not blocked by cover. LOS would still be blocked by a hill, of course.

[Dickstick]

Shooting out and then in is such a rare event, mainly because people don't place terrain like that, that adding up the two thicknesses of cover is embraced within the statement " by more than one UD of terrain that gives cover" .
This even covers adding up different types of terrain that gives cover.

Any change in wording may require a change in the french first, then a translation.
You are on the right track but don't waste your efforts in trying to rewriting the English for others, notes in your own book will help aid memory so are useful.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[Neep]

I don't disagree. My main point is to put out an "answer" to Kevin's question about shooting at a target in the same woods, to be accepted or reasonably rejected. It's all any of us can and should do. Again, I think the text pretty much supports the idea that anything in a 1UD range can be seen.

The bit about multiple areas of cover is merely a suggestion that this could be extended in a simple way. The text is vague enough to accommodate it.